Patterns and Prospects for the Implementation of Person-Centered Primary Care and People-Centered Public Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Primary care and public health have a shared goal of health improvement for each person and their populations. Public health isthe science and art of promoting health, preventing disease and prolonging life (adding life to years and years to life) through the organized efforts of society. Public health needs to be person- and people- centered taking into account the biomedical, social, cultural, psychological, and spiritual elements that are crucial to understanding the whole person and the community at large.This paper provides a review of the International College of Person Centred Medicine’s Declarations, which have formed a platform for the development of the ICPCM’s London Declaration on Primary Care and Public Health. Person-Centered Primary Health Care is by its very nature integrative by involving a broad knowledge of all sectors of health care and a strong understanding of community resources and other social determinants of health.Through trusted and healing relationships, a person-centered approach with people over time can achieve the required integration and coordination of care that leads to better health, effective health care and lower cost. Systems of care need to be built around primary care as the core foundational element to ensure that all people are seen and helped at the right time, by the right providers, for the right reasons, and in the right locations. By integrating primary, secondary, tertiary, preventive, and end-of-life care, we will collectively produce healthier persons, healthier people, and healthier nations. The London Declaration sets out a 10-point plan to achieve this by establishing a shared goal of improvement in the health and well being of the population through person and people centered primary care and public health.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.060 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".